Linux-Advocacy Digest #748, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Mar 01 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:41:00 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 01:31:49
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:11 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Mar 2001 13:34:12
>
>>If you wouldn't presume that it is illogical because you do not follow
>>it, you wouldn't be accused of being a Microsoft fan. I suppose you
>
>My actions and contributions to the community speak for themselves.
>The facts are: I contribute free code and documentation. My documentation
>is quite good, and comes with your favourite Linux distribution.
>I use Linux exclusively (and you don't). I facilitate and encourage my
>friends and students migration from Windows to Linux.
Your contributions along these lines are, I'm sure, appreciated. It is
only your contribution to the community of this newsgroup I'm
considering, and you are contradicting all your other efforts in that
regard.
>You know, it's not even true that I agree with everything MS has done.
>However, unlike the anti-MS heard, I don't blindly take a for or against
>position without subjecting the argument to scrutiny, indeed an
>important part of intellectual honesty says that arguments that are
>in line with ones own personal bias deserve *more* scrutiny, not less.
It is your insistence that it is a "herd", and not merely a very large
number of people who are anti-MS because it is reasonable to be anti-MS,
that makes your contentions concerning your position somewhat empty.
Intellectual honesty has nothing to do with defending MS, I'm afraid.
It truthfully is not that kind of issue. I wish it were, truly. I
agree with you concerning the scrutiny of personal beliefs, which is why
I spent so many years scrutinizing MS and their actions. To pretend
that after becoming convinced over more than a decade that they are
indeed a criminal organization is merely "personal bias" even after such
scrutiny, however, is merely suggesting that all beliefs held by anyone
but you are unfalsifiable, and that is not intellectually honest, to say
the least.
>I don't need to talk trash about Microsoft to "prove myself" to the herd.
Yet you need to defend a monopolist to "prove yourself" as apart from
the herd. Are we really to believe this is merely your desire to be
"fair"? Or perhaps it is simply because you don't understand the
issues, after all, and simply like to argue repetitively without
progress. People call that "trolling".
>Before you start branding me as a "Microsoft fan", I suggest you stop
>using Microsoft products.
If I could, I'd probably be a Microsoft fan.
>If you really care about Microsoft's "monopoly", do something about it,
>starting with your own computer.
What the hell do you think I'm doing? You seem to be saying "prove you
can easily overcome the barriers to entry in order to earn the right to
claim there are barriers to entry."
>>consider the application barrier which prevents you from enjoying your
>>games on Linux to begin with to be some "natural" effect of the market?
>
>More or less, yes. Games have already been made available on Linux, and
>the only thing that can slow their adoption is poor sales.
That's an unrefutable line of baloney, Donovan. The only thing that can
cause poor sales is slow adoption. Slow adoption is caused by barriers
to adoption, and these are erected purposefully (and illegally) by
Microsoft as barriers to entry of competition for the OS.
I am forced to conclude that you are either not as smart as you pretend,
or you are not as honest as you pretend. Either that, or you are simply
not thinking hard enough.
>>>So you're saying that we know that they have a monopoly, and you're stating
>>>that this implies that their prices must be excessive because of that
>>>monopoly (and not the converse) ?
>>
>>Well, he put it more logically than you did, but, yes, monopoly prices
>>are high because they are the prices of a monopoly, regardless of
>>whether they are higher or lower than they were before the monopoly, if
>>such a state ever existed. They would be lower if it weren't a
>>monopoly.
>
>I dispute this conjecture on the grounds that their prices are already
>quite low, and therefore they would have no need to further reduce them.
$2 is 'quite low'. Still very high, potentially monopoly pricing, but
low enough you probably wouldn't here me complain.
Given the billions MS has, and the millions of licenses they sell,
they'd obviously still be making a profit, though not much of one. But
we already knew that competitive pricing sucks for the producers. That
is the point, I'm afraid.
>>the monopolist sets their price, and it is, by definition, going to be
>>higher than competitive prices would set it (otherwise, the monopolist
>>themselves would find having a monopoly to be less 'profitable' than
>>honest business).
>
>You haven't established that Microsoft "set prices". What's stopping them
>from doubling their price if they can ? I mean, $50- is an awfully low
>price, why don't they raise it to $100- ? Why don't their shareholders
>sue them for not raising it ?
There you go: their price isn't $50, it's $180. So apparently, nothing
is stopping them from doubling their prices; they do it all the time.
Three or four times in the last two years it has been reported (separate
occasions, not just separate reports) that MS is making a change to
their corporate customer licensing which will effectively double the
cost of Windows for those customers. And we have no idea what OEM
prices actually look like, of course.
>>>The packaged box sets are not "free". Copies of other OS's aren't "free"
>>>either. For example, Sun gives away Solaris for "free", but the media kit
>>>is $80.
>>
>>So the question becomes why Windows *licenses* are not free, as most
>>other OSes are now. As well as why ME costs so much more than a Solaris
>>media kit (ME is $180).
>
>What's the OEM price (which accounts for most of the sales) though ?
NDA; QED.
>It's meaningless to cite the shelf price if they don't sell any
>like that, because your argument about their "high volume" falls
>apart -- they don't have high volume at that price. (For example,
>Turbo Linux was outselling Windows 98 box sets in Japan apparently)
This is the same subtle point you've been tripping on all along. If it
is "meaningless" to cite the shelf price if "they don't sell any like
that", then why *is* there a "shelf price"? Obviously, it can't be
volume that makes the price come down; MS sold millions and millions of
licenses for Win95, and the price never went down, and ME now costs the
same or more.
According to Microsoft, software benefits from "economies of scale"
(WInNT costs more than WinDOS because of fewer copies sold), but the
laws of economics themselves don't apply (WinDOS and WinNT both cost the
same no matter how long ago the development costs were paid for, and
there are no reproduction costs, and MS puts billions in the bank, so
they obviously don't have problems paying for what little support they
give...)
I'm sorry, its just plain braind-dead to pretend there's any doubt that
MS enjoys a monopoly, complete with the benefits of monopoly pricing.
It is not a lack of bias, but reason and evidence, which
uncontrovertible leads to this conclusion.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:41:02 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 01:38:23
GMT;
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:10 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 2 Mar 2001 16:02:52
>
>>>The argument does seem circular -- MS can price as they choose because
>>>they have a monopoly and they have a monopoly because they can price
>>>as freely as they choose.
>>
>>I will agree; it *seems* circular. This would be because if one does
>>not correctly grasp the abstraction "monopoly", one would be left
>>assuming that to have 95% of the market is a sufficient definition. It
>>isn't, but it *seems* to be.
>
>No, it is circular whether you understand "monopoly" or not, unless you
>make it clear what is being assumed, and what is being concluded (*and*
>you are not using the conclusion to justify the premise)
There is nothing being assumed besides knowledge of economics, and
nothing being concluded which is not justified.
>If you are arguing that the fact that they "have a monopoly" implies that
>the prices are higher, well this seems conjectural, unsubstantiated, and
>in contradiction with hard evidence.
Again, I'll point out that just because *you* get confused trying to
grasp the abstraction of 'monopoly' doesn't mean everyone else is. It
is common, of course, but I wish you'd stop presuming that everyone else
has the same problems you do.
>>>To show that MS would reduce their prices, you would need to show that
>>>someone else would offer much better prices. No-one's offering better
>>>prices at this stage.
>>
>>Linux can be had for free. This isn't better prices?
>
>No, it can't be "had for free". You either need to have a high bandwidth
>connection, or you need to pay for it. And no one sells Linux for free.
Got one for free on the back of a magazine I bought yesterday. Put it
on the shelf right next to the RedHat box I paid $70 for. Same
operating system, both free. I had to pay for the magazine, and
RedHat's box, documentation, and support, of course.
In both cases, the license was entirely 100% free of charge, zero cost.
>In particular, when Linux *is* sold by a company, it usually goes
>for $40-80
I thought you said you understood Linux and weren't a Microsoft sock
puppet. So why is it you're so pathetically ignorant about what Linux
is, whether it is sold, and how much it or related services cost? When
Linux *is* sold, to correct your statement, an unlimited developers
license goes for about one one billionth of the corresponding from
Microsoft.
Kind of like saying air isn't free, because sometimes you pay someone to
put it in a scuba tank for you.
>>>That's because the average user is choosing low end hardware. The
>>>apparent inconsistency is due to the fact that they aren't moving
>>>towards the low end on the software front.
>>
>>How is a PIII "low end hardware" compared to an 80386?
>
>A PIII-450 is lower end hardware today than (for example) a Pentium I
>was in 1995.
So how is a PIII "low end hardware" compared to an 80386?
>>>I accept it as an upper bound, in both cases. If there are known sources
>>>from which we know copies can be obtained for $X from a reseller, then
>>>anyone wishing to buy them should be able to purchase for no more than
>>>that.
>>
>>What a moronic and clueless statement. No wonder you don't understand
>>how the monopoly works; you don't understand how commerce works.
>
>Resorting to insults again. COme on Max, can't you do any better than
>this ?
That's not "resorting to insults". That's "getting fed up and losing my
patience". An insult would be if I said you were a moron and clueless.
I have not said either, though your statements are both moronic and
clueless.
Now, if *you* could do any better than *that*, I'm sure *I* could do
better than "this".
>>>And so is the judgement that it is "too expensive".
>>
>>This isn't true; it may be an opinion, but it is not an arbitrary
>>judgement. It isn't even opinion, but fact, if you know anything about
>>economics.
>
>I bet you would find that a lot of people who really understand economics
>more than any usenet crank would disagree with you.
Without a doubt, that's completely untrue. I know of nobody who
understands economics that would attempt to refute the law of supply and
demand.
>>>You've already made a good argument for them not doing so, I suspect that
>>>it's an insurance policy to some degree.
>>
>>You can "suspect" whatever your clueless little monopoly-apologist head
>>might want. Forgive us if we bother to be more rational.
>
>I was agreeing with him. If you'd like to be "more rational", then
>why don't you tell us why they won't double their price tomorrow,
Because they don't need to in order to enjoy monopoly profits.
>and how they can justify not doing so to their shareholders ?
I don't bother with silly ideas like that.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:41:03 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 15:42:19
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:01:03 GMT, Ed Allen wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:10 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Linux can be had for free. This isn't better prices?
>>>
>>>No, it can't be "had for free". You either need to have a high bandwidth
>>>connection, or you need to pay for it. And no one sells Linux for free.
>>>
>>>In particular, when Linux *is* sold by a company, it usually goes
>>>for $40-80
>>>
>> Those companies are selling the support to get running and to help
>> identify and work around unusual hardware.
>
>I'd argue that Windows is as eassy to install without tech support than Linux
>is with it.
You'd be wrong; RH 7 goes onto a home-built system like butter, vastly
more quickly and easily than Windows *ever* did.
>> The same CD which you get from RedHat with a nice manual can be had
>> from CheapBytes for $1.98
>
>No, the Cheapbytes CD only includes the downloadable stuff.
>
>BTW, do you really expect them to compete with downloadable CDs ? I find
>it more realistic that they'd try to compete with the box sets, and
>commercial OSs on price.
They're not competing to begin with, so your question is meaningless.
>> What is the low end of the Windows price ?
>>
>> I thought that was supposed to be the "consumer oriented" Windows ME
>> at $180.00
>
>No. You can't have it both ways -- either their oprice is $180 OR they
>have enormous sales volume. Since most of their sales are OEM based,
>they don't sell many copies at $180-.
Either the price is $180, or the price isn't $180. But that's the price
they publish, so that's the price they can get for the whole volume.
Ignoring predatory pricing, NDAs, illegal exclusions, and even monopoly
leverage, you have no facts except the price of WinME is $180.
[...]
>> You seem to want a single facet to be pointed out and be able to say
>> that defines the monopoly.
>
>I am not saying this at all. I am not even trying to argue that MS don't have a
>monopoly.
Your statements *appear* to be entirely disingenuous. You claim you
don't argue they don't have a monopoly, but you repeatedly claim they do
not enjoy any facet of monopoly power.
>What I am saying is that the "MS's prices are too high" claim is
>unsubstantiated nonsense.
And that claim is unsubstantiated nonsense, Donovan. Practice what you
preach.
>>>I bet you would find that a lot of people who really understand economics
>>>more than any usenet crank would disagree with you.
>>>
>> You mean like the ones hired to give speeches at the "seminars" for
>> Federal Judges where they claim that single producers can make goods
>> more efficiently and that monopolies are "good" for consumers ?
>
>If you're claiming that anyone who's knowledgeable and appears to disagree with
>Max has somehow been bribed, well suffice it to say that I find such an absurd
>conspiracy theory very hard to believe.
>
>The funny thing is that the price whiners have been putting forth a very
>convincing argument that a monopoly is more efficient [...]
See what I mean?
Honestly, Donovan; the curiosity is eating me up: are you dishonest, or
ignorant?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:41:05 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 02:03:06
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:07 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Feb 2001 03:19:11
>> [...]
>>>In other businesses, the market leader does not make their prices cheaper
>>>just because they can afford to.
>>
>>Of course they do. This is what free market capitalism is all about.
>
>Of course they don't. For example, Quake III costs the same as other
>games. There is a point of diminishing returns in the marginal sales
>vs marginal price curve (and even a point where price drops hurt sales
>in some markets).
And you'd like to be able to move that point back and forth to fit your
preconceptions, rather than having any real data to base your
suppositions on. But the fact is, you don't know where that point is;
neither does the producer, really. They try to guess (which about sums
up what 90% of 'business people' are involved in doing; they wouldn't be
able to *produce* anything to save their lives), but in reality, any
producer, market leader or not, makes their prices as cheap as they can
afford to in order to maximize their sales. If their market would drop
off if they made it lower, then obviously that's "not being able to
afford to." Doh!
>>That's how you get to be the 'market leader', BTW. If you got there any
>>other way, then you probably broke the law.
>
>Dell don't offer the cheapest prices. Neither do Sony. (And neither of
>these vendors are "cheap") I could go on and on, but it should be
>obvious that there is a difference between "competing" and
>"competing on price".
Dell can charge as much as they want and people will still buy as many
Dells PCs? Somehow I doubt that.
I have gone on and on, but it should be obvious there is no difference,
let alone clear distinction, between "competing" and "setting prices at
competitive levels". This results, possibly, in more difficulty, I'll
warn you, for those who have trouble grasping abstractions: 'competitive
levels' is not a fixed numeric amount, and while nobody can ever
precisely determine it at any point, any reasonable (but theoretically
perfectly informed) person would know it when they saw it.
>Those who do only the latter (for example, a
>lot of online businesses) rarely if ever make a profit. Those who
>can convince the market that *their* product is "better" are more
>likely to be succesful.
I'll bet you have no idea how circular your arguments are, do you?
>>> They price their products in such a way
>>>that the prices are reasonably competitive (eg: $50- for an OEM license)
>>
>>I would think an OS would cost about $3 for a license, if you could make
>>it efficient to collect such small amounts.
>
>Well, no one else has made a commercial OS that sells for that sum of
>money.
No, but they give one away for free, so it would require intentional
ignorance to pretend that, had MS not monopolized, this couldn't be an
efficient level of production with reasonable profits.
>>>Unsubstantiated whining that something is "too expensive" is not worthy
>>>of the word "economics".
>>
>>Save it for someone easily cowed by false intellectualism.
>
>I'm not the one proclaiming myself to be infallible; I am not the
>one who dismisses all who disagree with me as ignorant.
Neither am I, despite your insinuation.
>I am not the
>one who writes long, illogical, incoherent sentences in a futile
>attempt to sound intelligent.
No, your's tend to be shorter, and aren't as intelligent, from my
perspective. Your premise appears to be that it is not appropriate to
"bitch" when one is faced with facts indicating that someone is ripping
you off. Why you consider that the reasoned position, and claim that
those who don't want to be the victims of a monopoly are "biased" and
"whining" (or claim that being victim of a monopoly is a voluntary act
and limited to those who use monopoly products without any desire to do
so), you obviously aren't reasoning, but merely trying, for unknown
reasons, to defend a monopoly.
>>>I find it hard to see how -- their prices are already reasonably
>>>competitive. Most of their sales of Windows are of the OEM edition,
>>>and that goes for $50-.
>>
>>One suspects you find it hard to see anything at all, if you think $50
>>for Windows as an unavoidable Microsoft tax is "reasonably competitive".
>
>Yes, you're right about "one". I've never encountered anyone else on
>usenet who exhibits such unjustified arrogance.
Using the word "one" is unjustified arrogance? Sorry, that's a common
rhetorical technique, and I'm by no means the only one to use it
occasionally, and not even often.
It doesn't surprise me, of course, that you find my tone arrogant;
that's a fact of life on Usenet. I state my opinion "as if it were
fact", because it is my opinion that it is fact. That isn't arrogance,
that's lack of obsequiousness. I'm not actually any more arrogant than
is justified; perhaps you should try to realize that most of my "tone"
is your presumption while reading my words, not my actual remarks.
>I've seen others who
>are ruder, more ill-mannered, and less intelligent for sure. However,
>the "pompous ass on COLA" title is doubtlessly yours.
Well, its inevitable that I'll sound pompous merely by believing I have
an opinion worth considering to contribute to such an auspicious
assemblage.
Then again, maybe you are just being petulant and defensive.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:41:06 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 01:20:57
GMT;
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:13 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Feb 2001 19:42:16
>>>On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:14:53 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>>>But the same is true for other game software companies. Why can't Id
>>>sell their games cheaper than *other game companies* who have higher
>>>costs (namely they have to license an engine) ?
>>
>>Why should they? What's your point (other than the fact that Id clearly
>>doesn't monopolize, despite their ownership of the engine code)?
>
>Like Microsoft, their product is "too expensive" (because they have high
>sales, but their expenses are in the same ballpark as those of any other
>game shop). Therefore, they should reduce their prices, right ?
I've never heard any customer of an Id product express the honest
opinion that Id software was "too expensive". You don't think that
actually makes a difference? Or perhaps you just don't realize how
entirely unsupported it leaves your argument that those who bitch about
MS's prices are "just bitching" and not actually observing monopoly
pricing in action?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:41:07 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 01:21:23
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:12 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:14:53
>> [...]
>>>From what I've heard, there are far more artists and level designers than
>>>coders.
>>
>>Believe it or not, there *are* other kinds of games besides hack & slash
>>first-person shooters.
>
>Irrelevant. We were talking about Id
I was under the impression we were talking about the economics of game
developers, and using Id as an example. You don't think it matters?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:41:08 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 02:05:46
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:06 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Feb 2001 17:57:26
>>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:01:50 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sure, then can do that. Or they could spend the money on marketing.
>>>>But they don't _have_ to do 2x as much work for a 2x increase in sales,
>>>>and I don't think they do. MS reports net profit margins in the
>>>>neighborhood of 50%, which means that they sure aren't putting all of
>>>>their money back into R&D.
>>>
>>>If their profits are 50% though, they certainly don't do 1x the work
>>>for 2x the sales, right ? BTW, I don't find 50% margins that excessive
>>>for a wildly succesful software company.
>>
>>How about for an illegal monopoly?
>
>If they are indeed an illegal monopoly, then I would think that in itself
>is cause to issue a judgement against them without some dumbass
>unsubstantiated horseshit about "high prices".
This is the crux of the argument, then, I guess. Because if they are
indeed an illegal monopoly, then it isn't dumbass unsubstantiated
horseshit, you see, but one of the predicted, observed, and inevitable
effects of monopolization. Its practically straight out of Adam Smith's
The Wealth Of Nations; why are you arguing against it?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:41:09 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 01:15:49
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Feb 2001 17:37:52
>
>>>Well they're hardly gong to pay the maintenance costs afterwards are they ?
>>
>>And you'll notice that you're hardly going to get any maintenance value
>>afterwards, either.
>
>Nonsense. Microsoft do make fixes available.
Like I said; you'll notice that you're hardly going to get any
maintenance value afterwards. I didn't say you'll get none.
>>>>Yet it has a list price of $180.
>>>
>>>That's not the OEM license.
>>
>>I don't really give a rat's ass.
>
>When you consider that almost all sales are at the OEM price, it's
>dishonest (or plain stupid) to suggest that the "typical" price of
>a Windows license is $180. It isn't.
When you know that almost all sales are through OEM channels (covered by
NDAs, incredibly excessive and dubious restrictions, and
per-processor/cliff's edge pricing), its dishonest, and plain monopoly
pricing, for the price of the Windows retail package to be $180. That
is the point, and why it makes no sense to pay attention to any other
price. If there is no reason for it to be so high, it is obviously an
artifact of just the effect we are discussing: monopoly pricing.
>>>>>Likewise, information on the cost of buying PC parts in bulk is
>>>>>publically available, and it looks like the OEMs run very slim margins
>>>>>on hardware (which means that a lot of the money you're spending really
>>>>>is on hardware)
>>>>
>>>>And how exactly do you account for the changes in the PC parts you're
>>>>supposedly comparing? You just ignore it, right?
>>>
>>>Sorry, I don't get your point.
>>
>>My point was that pricewatch.com is useless for determining the
>>historical trends in pricing.
>
>But quite useful for acquiring ballpark figures on current prices.
"Ballparks" only work when everyone's acting legally, I'm afraid.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
